Swagman wrote on Dec 28^th, 2014 at 2:37pm:


If govt. halted subsidies to private schools and hospitals, a great many of them would still remain open ... there is no way the rich are going to send their kids to school with the riff raff. You still haven't convinced me that the savings outweight the benefits  ... your argument is that the rich pay medicare too, fine, but for them we have to have two hospitals being funded for their use, one for their botox injections and enemas and the other for their serious illness .. it's not like the govt. can close down a hospital because they already subsidise one private hospital in the same area

Swagman wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 10:04am:


The vast majority of private schools are catholic schools and such which service the general community mostly. The majority of their students could not afford to go to these schools with no subsidy and many would close or very significantly down size and become only for the better off to attend which rather defeats the purpose by creating more schools exclusively for the more affluent.

Maybe the equation is a little too generous to private schools at present but it needs to be in place.

Quote:


This thread so far has been the complete opposite....

Swagman wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 2:34pm:


Mainly because the righties keep taking it off topic.

Dnarever wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 7:34pm:


Not only that, but not one of them could tell me just how women who were earning $150,000 were entitled to Abbott's PPL because they were not 'rich', but suddenly became 'rich' when they came to be included in the top percentile of tax payers.

And people with incomes of $80,000+ also found themselves in the 'rich' bracket.....

Lobo wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:


That's because I don't agree with tax payer funded PPL full stop.  It should be a work entitlement similar to long service (have some form of time qualification)

Lobo wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:


Depends on your vantage point.  If you're on $25k pa someone on $80kpa would appear rich.

The Govt seems to think it's $88k as that's when the Medicare surcharge kicks in....

LW's argument revolves around tax paid net of 'extra' benefits.  It is a valid argument.

Swagman wrote on Dec 29^th, 2014 at 8:04pm:


how about picking an amount and leaving it there, rather than changing it with every policy .... if 80k is rich, don't claim 150k is poor when they're talking about cuts ...

afterall, you are really concerned about the deficit aren't you? It's wasn't just an excuse to bitch about labor, was it?

Swagman wrote on Dec 30^th, 2014 at 9:43am:


We know it’s your "message", Swagman. The point is you’ve proven it wrong. Those on incomes between $38,000 and $180,000 contribute 70% of income tax - the main tax burden. Income tax, as you have also shown, is the largest source of federal taxes.

If your message and your figures are so far out of whack, it dampens the rest of your argument - like the one on penalty rates (which has nothing to do with taxation). It makes you come across as a flagwaver for some other agenda.

This, of course, is exactly the problem the Abbott government is in. They don’t want to raise company taxes because they fear pushing business offshore. They can raise the GST, but this money simply goes to the states. All they have is income tax, which is against their policy to raise as well.

It’s also against their economic theory, which holds that you get more revenue if you lower taxes. Bush, of course, tried this in the states and ended up with a deficit in the trillions.

Oh, and it’s also the Libs’ economic theory to run a surplus.

Looks like Mr Abbott can’t win, doesn’t it? Looks like the only way to achieve victory is to change the "message".

Good propaganda, comrade.